Jonathan Marsh wrote:
> Dave,
>
>
>
> Perhaps it's just me, but the sense of what we're trying to say gets
> lost by the time you're crafted it into a proposal.
>
>
>
> 3.5.1 looks accurate, but starts the reader on a treasure hunt instead
> of directly giving them the answer to this question. 3.5.2 seems to
> apply restrictions to SOAP request-response beyond the desired
> definition of the HTTP binding.
>
>
>
> I prefer Paco's formulation - directly state that for HTTP, anonymous
> means no more and no less than the HTTP response. I'd put his
> proposed text directly into the (currently empty) 3.5. And declare
> victory.
>
In that case, strike "and no less", which is just a new complication.
That leaves the semantics unchanged, and we can declare victory without
firing a shot. I would much rather declare victory this way.
Special-casing HTTP for SOAP 1.2 is only victory if you abandon the idea
that features and properties can apply across protocols.
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> *From:* public-ws-addressing-request@w3.org
> [mailto:public-ws-addressing-request@w3.org] *On Behalf Of *David Hull
> *Sent:* Sunday, February 12, 2006 10:08 PM
> *To:* Francisco Curbera
> *Cc:* public-ws-addressing@w3.org; public-ws-addressing-request@w3.org
> *Subject:* Re: CR20 proposal (consistent wording)
>
>
>
> Francisco Curbera wrote:
>
>As I said in my earlier mail, this would be the text to include in section
>
>3.5:
>
>
>
>"When the HTTP transport is in use, the anonymous URI is only used to
>
>indicate the use of the HTTP reply channel so it can only appear as the
>
>value of the [destination] property in reply messages."
>
>
>
> To be more concrete (insertions in italics):
>
>3.5 Use of Anonymous Address in SOAP
>
>
>
>3.5.1 SOAP 1.1/HTTP
>
>
>
>When "http://www.w3.org/@@@@/@@/addressing/anonymous" is specified
>
>for the response endpoint then there is no change to the SOAP 1.1/
>
>HTTP binding./ The URI /
>
>/"http://www.w3.org/@@@@/@@/addressing/anonymous" MUST NOT be specified/
>
>/for the [destination] property of an HTTP message, except when required/
>
>/as a result of the rules in section 3.4 of the core./
>
>
>
>3.5.2 SOAP 1.2
>
>
>
>When "http://www.w3.org/@@@@/@@/addressing/anonymous" is specified
>
>for the response endpoint and the request is the request part of a
>
>SOAP request-response MEP [soap 1.2 adjuncts ref], then any response
>
>MUST be the response part of the same SOAP request-response MEP [soap
>
>1.2 adjuncts ref]. /The URI /
>
>/"http://www.w3.org/@@@@/@@/addressing/anonymous" MUST NOT be specified/
>
>/for the [destination] property of any message in a SOAP request-response/
>
>/MEP, except when required as a result of the rules in section 3.4 of/
>
>/the core./
>
> This could be sharpened by saying the server/receiver MUST fault on
> receiving a message with such a [destination], instead of saying that
> such a [destination] MUST NOT be used but not saying what happens if
> it is.
>
>
>
>Paco
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> David Hull
>
> <dmh@tibco.com> <mailto:dmh@tibco.com> To: Francisco Curbera/Watson/IBM@IBMUS
>
> Sent by: cc: public-ws-addressing@w3.org <mailto:public-ws-addressing@w3.org>
>
> public-ws-addressing-req Subject: Re: CR20 proposal
>
> uest@w3.org <mailto:uest@w3.org>
>
>
>
>
>
> 02/12/2006 02:22 PM
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>Francisco Curbera wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>>As per Bob's request, and for easier reference, this is a more detailed
>>
>>version of the proposal for closing CR20 that we discussed on the last
>>
>>call:
>>
>>
>>
>>Middle of the road approach: retain the defaulting of the To header to
>>
>>anonymous, but re-state (in section 3.2 of the Core spec) that the use of
>>
>>the anonymous URI in the destination field is actually dependent on the
>>
>>interpretation that the transport binding gives to the anonymous URI. Add
>>
>>
>>
>a
>
>
>
>>note in Section 3.5 of the SOAP spec indicating that for the case of the
>>
>>HTTP transport the anonymous URI is only used to indicate the use of the
>>
>>HTTP reply channel so it can only be used in reply messages.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>Could you please state this in the form of an amendment to the text
>
>accepted for section 3.5 in the resolution to CR 15 [1]? While this
>
>text has not yet been incorporated into the editors' draft yet, I
>
>believe it represents the latest draft of that section.
>
>
>
>[1] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-ws-addressing/2006Jan/0085
>
>
>
>
>
>>Paco
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>